Authors from the US and Europe report data from a phase III study comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of the bevacizumab biosimilar ABP 215 (Mvasi) with originator bevacizumab Avastin in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1].

NSCLC is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women in the US and the European Union (EU). Bevacizumab is approved in the US, EU, and elsewhere for first-line treatment in patients with advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy. Bevacizumab biosimilar Mvasi (ABP 215) was approved in the US in September 2017 [2] and in Europe in January 2018 [3].

This study was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult patients with non-squamous NSCLC receiving first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The study was conducted at 101 study centres in 17 countries in Asia/Pacific, Europe, North America, and Latin America.

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ABP 215 or Avastin at a dose of 15 mg/kg administered by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every 3 weeks for ≥ 4 and ≤ 6 cycles.

The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% CI of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67, 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored.

A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 (n = 328) and Avastin (n = 314). Of the randomized patients, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and Avastin groups, respectively, had objective responses (ORR risk ratio: 0.93 [90% CI: 0.80, 1.09]). ‘Clinical equivalence was also supported’, according to the authors, by comparing the risk difference of ORR and 90% confidence interval between ABP 215 and Avastin.

The authors concluded that ‘ABP 215 is similar to [Avastin] with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and [Avastin]’.

Conflict of interestThe authors of the research paper [1] reported conflict of interest, including having acted as a consultant or investigator for various pharmaceutical companies. For full details of the authors’ conflict of interest, see the research paper [1].

Permission granted to reproduce for personal and non-commercial use only. All other reproduction, copy or reprinting of all or part of any ‘Content’ found on this website is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of the publisher. Contact the publisher to obtain permission before redistributing.